READERS WRITE

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the excellent article on circumcision. I won’t bore the reader or embarrass myself with all the detrimental effects of circumcision I’ve suffered as a result of circumcision, but I will say that once my late mother learnt the truth about this deplorable practice, she lamented the fact that she had denied her maternal instincts and failed to protect her sons, caving to the pressures of her husband (my father) and the doctor (another man).

It is also interesting to note that my feelings of anger and resentment were aimed more at my mother,even though my father had more to do with the decision.
Sincerely,
Rich Angell
Missoula, Montana

I really enjoyed reading this article by aubrey taylor...It was very well-written and a fresh perspective on a very ‘hot topic’ these days. Thanks,
Jen

Dear wnc-woman & Aubrey Taylor,
I have just finished reading Aubrey Taylor’s article online. As I read through it I was surprised that I felt a strong emotion.... pride. I have felt emotions when reading other articles... some mild, some more intense. But I rarely ever recall feeling a sense of pride at an online article. It was startling both because of the emotion itself and because of its intensity.

I’m social security age, father of three and grandfather of four with the fifth grandchild due in July. I know pride when I feel it. The pride I felt associated with this article was of the kind experienced when viewing a finely crafted piece of work done by someone else. Something like civic pride or pride in the accomplishments of your children.

I am very pleased that Aubrey wrote the article, and that wnc-woman published it.

I would like to offer some feedback about the article topic for your consideration.

1.) The vast majority of the American public [including the medical establishment] is under-informed about the target of circumcision... the foreskin itself. Few people can list three functions of the normal foreskin. Neither can they describe the penile skin’s gliding action nor elaborate on its importance to penile function. Yet many folks discuss whether or not this vital portion of penile anatomy should be amputated and destroyed. In short, they discuss destroying something they know little or nothing about. Plus, it is a part of someone else’s body... not their own. As a simple test, ask yourself, your co-workers, friends or family, or even a physician or nurse if they can list three foreskin functions and describe the penile skin’s gliding action. Take your own personal poll to see whether folks are informed or under-informed. ‘Cover the glans’ is the only answer most people are able to come up with as a foreskin function.

If you want to have some fun, ask folks when the foreskin is foreskin and when it is not. Huh? Let me explain. If you take a look at a circumcised penis there is a boundary where the mucosa and shaft skin meet. Mucosa is like lip skin and shaft skin is like face skin in appearance. The glans and adjoining tissue remnant of the inner foreskin are mucosa. The glans and part of the penile skin adjoining it will look similar to lip skin. The remainder of the shaft skin will look similar to body skin. On a circumcised penis the mucosa / shaft skin boundary will be somewhere along the shaft between the glans and the body. This boundary is where the foreskin used to be. The boundary is the scar line left after foreskin removal. Note that its location is mid-shaft. If the foreskin were still present, it would be located mid-shaft when the skin is retracted. Foreskin is only fore-skin when it is positioned fore-ward over the glans. When it is retracted it becomes mid-skin. It is no longer fore-skin. Unfortunately there is no common term for the tissue when it is positioned back on the shaft.

Circumcision might take on a different context if it were defined as removal of mid-skin or aft-skin from the penis. Think in nautical terms of fore, aft, and midship. It could no longer be erroneously described as “a fold of skin that covers the glans”, which is a half truth. Yes, it does cover the glans SOMETIMES. But when slid back on the shaft at the other end of its range of motion, it does not cover the glans. Few people understand that penile skin is mobile and has a gliding action. This gliding action is what allows the penile skin to move over the glans or be repositioned along the shaft when retracted. When positioned over the glans, the foreskin can be thought of as being in its ‘parked position’.

One of the unique features of penile skin is that it is dynamic. It is meant to glide fore and aft, and has a range of motion. It is not ‘static’ like body skin. Body skin can move a little like wiggling the top of Jell-O, but it doesn’t glide over underlying structures. In order for the penile skin to cover both the shaft, and then fold over on itself to cover the glans, it HAS to be longer than the shaft itself. The ‘extra length’ is needed because the skin must fold over on itself to cover the glans. Folded length is HALF un-folded length. Foreskin is twice the length you would think it might be. This ‘extra length’ is what allows the penile skin to glide over the shaft during intercourse. It acts like a sleeve bearing to reduce unwanted irritating friction. The female has natural lubricants and the male has gliding skin. Both intended to make sex more pleasurable.

2.) If you take a look at the 130 plus year history of circumcision in the US it has been purported to be a cure or prophylaxis for a huge variety of human afflictions including insanity, club feet, asthma, cancer, and HIV/AIDS. You name the affliction and it is quite probable that circumcision proponents have claimed that amputating part of the male sex organ will cure or prevent it. Obviously the claims were, and are, false. That means the claims were deceptions. But why would medical folks try to deceive the public? Ask who makes money from doing circumcisions... it is usually those same medical folks who present the deceptions. Routine infant circumcision is a multi-hundred-million dollar a year industry in the US. [read news articles for various estimates of the dollar amount] If you combine deception, and profiting in some way from that deception, you have the definition of a SCAM. In other terms, promoting, soliciting for, and doing unnecessary surgery to remove normal, healthy, functional tissue is medical fraud. Circumcision is possibly the most elaborate, widely distributed, and longest running scam in medical history.

If you look up the medical definition of surgery, or criteria for medical cutting to be deemed a surgery, circumcision does not fit any of them. [The Doctors Opposing Circumcision web site has the list. About the 5th paragraph down. faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/end.html ] If circumcision is not a surgery, then what is it? If circumcision is considered to be a sexual mutilation rather than a beneficial surgery, then the claim that circumcision is the world’s oldest surgery is false. Instead it is the world’s oldest mutilation disguised as medical surgery. Another deception that is part of the scam. It is testament that large numbers of people can be deceived by a few. As example, for centuries a few said the earth was flat... everyone believed. A few said the earth was the center of the universe... everyone believed. A few said black cats are bad luck... everyone believed. A few said that applying leeches to the body to draw blood was therapeutic... everyone believed. It takes effort and education to dispel false beliefs.3.) Foreskin is more than just skin or sexual tissue. The foreskin is part of the penile skin. Penile skin is part of the male sex organ. The sex organs [male and female] are a large part of our individual gender identity. Gender identity is part of our self identity.

Intentionally destroying a portion of the sex organ affects gender identity and self esteem.4.) The male and female sex organs are a complimentary matched set. Each is designed to fit and function with the other. If either gender’s sex organ is diminished in function, it will adversely affect the union of the two. They may still ‘work together’, but they will not provide the optimal experience they were ‘designed’ to achieve. The experience may be satisfactory, or even good or great, but it will not be the ‘best’ and most fulfilling. If the sexual experience doesn’t seem to be what it should be, look to see if there is a foreskin present or not. A whole and fully functional sex organ is everyone’s birthright... both male and female.- Please note: When a male discovers that a portion of his sexorgan is missing, and most importantly understands the significance of that loss, it can generate some strong negative emotions. Those emotions can include anger, resentment, betrayal, sadness, depression, bewilderment, revenge, and many others. Circumcision and experiencing a sense of loss may occur decades apart. The emotions will likely be experienced as increasing detailed knowledge of what was lost finally ‘sinks in’ and he understands the value of what was taken. The emotions are real and valid when they occur, even though cause and effect may be widely separated in time. Emotional reaction to loss occurs when RECOGNITION of the loss occurs... not necessarily when the actual loss event happened. Listening and NOT BELITTLING the male’s emotions as being petty or insubstantial can be most helpful when the male is working through the emotions.5.) ‘Routine’ infant circumcision is always done to a child by an adult. It is always intentional. It is never an accident. It is the large and powerful inflicting their will on the small and helpless. Only another adult can intercede to protect the child. Knowledge empowered parents are the first line of defense for the child.

6.) Final thoughts: If touching or manipulating a child’s genitals by a Catholic cleric is considered child abuse, why is cutting off a part of a child’s sex organ by a Jewish cleric not held up for comparison or seen in the same light? If baby shaking, pinching, hitting, bruising, burning and cutting a child are considered child abuse why is cutting the child’s sex organ not also seen as child abuse? Is it so far off the end of the injury scale that it is not recognized for what it truly is? The infant does not recognize the difference or know the adult’s intent. He only knows the pain and loss. The physical pain may pass, but the physical loss lasts a lifetime. Circumcision [both male and female] is sexual crippling.Perhaps someday, our species will evolve beyond its tendency to inflict violence on its own kind.
Warm regards,
Leo Freyer, CMfgT - retired Spokane Washington

Dear Editors of WNCW,

We send a special thanks to author Aubrey Taylor for her sensible and well-argued article debunking male circumcision mythology and suggesting why modern, empowered women should reject it for their sons. (“Why Empowered Women Choose Not to Circumcise.” April, 2005.) My heartiest congratulation and thanks, too, to your publication, from our staff and on behalf or our worldwide medical professional members.

It is one of the puzzling ironies of Anglo-American medicine that this bizarre ritual was invented by intact (uncircumcised) men to sexually desensitize members of their own gender. And then its physician-victims have sustained this barbarity through seven generations, using scientific reasoning that would amuse a medieval alchemist.

Ms. Taylor does a wonderful job of addressing those lead-into-gold myths in a no-nonsense, practical way.

It is wonderful, too, that independent women such as Ms. Taylor have seen the light and made their own way to the truth, ignoring the silly prattle of US medical journals with circumcised editors. She has seen through the dishonest claim of medical benefits for painfully amputating erogenous parts of children’s genitalia to protect them from unlikely and easily curable, transient infections.
We were particularly struck by her empathy for the powerless, as opposed to the more common reflexive nod to convention and conformity, and her theme that the rights of the male child are inextricably related to the freedom of women as well.

Actually, if she knew the other related medical frauds we track—dishonest ‘marketing’ consents (or none at all); spite circumcisions by one parent over the other’s wishes; home circumcisions, forcible retractions of the intact; circumcision of preemies, the dying, and the paralyzed– Ms. Taylor would have been even more appalled.

Her vision is, in our opinion, the true mark of an empowered person, as Ms. Taylor herself suggests so ably.

Again, our heartfelt thanks to her, and to your publication for being bold enough to state the truth and reject comforting, but dishonest, myths.
John V. Geisheker, JD, LL.M.
Attorney at LawGeneral Counsel,Doctors Opposing Circumcision
1727-14th Ave., Suite #18
Seattle, WA 98122 USA
Tel. 206.568. 0566
DoctorsOpposingCircumcision.org